Conversation against Luciferians

Dogmatic-polemical essay by Bl. Jerome of Stridon "Conversation against the Luciferians" is directed against the followers of Bishop Lucifer of Caralitan, who refused to enter into church communion with bishops who communicated with the Arians or signed the pro-Aryan confession of faith drawn up at the Ariminian Council (359). The treatise was written by Bl. Jerome in Antioch in 378-379, or in Constantinople in 381-382, or in Rome in 382-385. It is believed that the work is a transcript of a real dispute between the “Orthodox” (Blessed Jerome) and a certain “Luciferian Helladius.” It was probably created at the request of Pope Damasus in order to combat the communities of dissidents living in the city. The work consists of 2 parts: polemical and dogmatic. In the polemical part, Bl. Jerome shows the inconsistency of the Luciferian point of view: they recognize the validity of the Sacrament of Baptism performed by Arian bishops or those bishops who signed pro-Arian documents, but at the same time they deny the priesthood of such bishops and do not recognize the validity of the Sacraments they performed. In the dogmatic part of the bl. Jerome dwells in detail on the historical circumstances of the Council of Arimin (359). He then describes the conciliatory Council of Alexandria (362) that followed, presided over by St. Athanasius the Great and the rejection of his decisions by Bishop Lucifer, which led to the Luciferian schism. The essay examines the position of the extreme party of Luciferians, who did not recognize Arian baptism and insisted on the rebaptism of all those returning from Arianism (both laity and bishops). Blzh. Jerome refutes this opinion, referring to Church Tradition, and recalls a similar dispute about the re-baptism of heretics between schmch. Cyprian of Carthage and Pope St. Stephen I in 255-257. At the end of the treatise, the Luciferian recognizes the correctness of the Orthodox and renounces his errors. Blzh. Jerome comes to the conclusion that heresies lead to the division of the Church and the rupture of its unity. But heretics can repent and return to the bosom of the Catholic Church, which consists of people of different nationalities and morals, good and evil, righteous and sinful. The work serves as a valuable source for reconstructing the events of the anti-Arian struggle in the West. *The title of the work in Latin is Dialogus contra Luciferianos. Recently, one follower of Lucifer, in an intolerably chatty argument with another, a pet of the church, expressed purely canine (out of anger) eloquence. He claimed that the devil had taken possession of the whole world, and that the church, as they are already in the habit of saying, had turned into a brothel. And he, on the contrary, although rationally, but inappropriately and at the wrong time, argued that Christ died not without a reason, that the Son of God did not descend (from heaven) for one stinking casing 1 . And until what? – When the lanterns lit along the streets broke the circle of their listeners and the night stopped the awkward argument, they dispersed almost spitting on each other’s faces, and those present, however, proposed to gather in a secluded portico the next morning; when everyone had gathered there according to the agreement, it was decided to record the speech of both of them through cursive writers. So, when everyone was seated, the Luciferian Helladius said: I want you to answer me, first of all, are the Arians Christians or not? “I,” answered the Orthodox, “will give you a broader question: are all Christians heretics?” Luciferian said: Whom you called a heretic, you already said that he is not a Christian. Orthodox: So, heretics are not all Christians? Ave. If they are not Christ’s, then they are the devil’s. L. Nobody doubts that. Ave. If they are the devil, then it makes no difference whether they are heretics or pagans. Ave. So, it is decided between us that a heretic should be spoken of in the same way as a pagan. L. Indeed, it’s decided. Ave. Now ask about anything, since we agree that heretics are pagans. L. What I was trying to achieve with my question was stated - that heretics are not Christians. Now the conclusion remains. If the Arians are heretics, and all heretics are pagans, then the Arians are pagans. If the Arians are pagans, and if the church cannot have any communication with the Arians, i.e. with the pagans, then it is obvious that your church, which receives bishops from the Arians, i.e. from the pagans, receives not so much bishops as priests from the Capitol; and therefore should rather be called the synagogue of the Antichrist than the church of Christ. Ave. So the prophecy was fulfilled: he dug a ditch for me, and he himself fell into it. Ave. If the Arians, you say, are pagans, and the Arian crowds are the camps of the devil: then how do you accept the devil baptized in the camps? L. I accept, but only when he repents. Ave. You absolutely don't understand what you're saying. Who accepts a pagan on condition of repentance? L. I simply answered at the beginning of the conversation that all heretics are pagans. But since the question was proposed with cunning, then, recognizing your victory on the first point, I move on to the next one, and this time I affirm that a layman coming from the Arians should be accepted through repentance, but a clergyman should not. Ave. I won, as you say, victory on the first point; won the second one too. Ave. Don’t you know that both laity and clergy have one Christ, that there is not one God among converts and not another among bishops? Why does the one who accepts repentant laity not accept repentant clergy? L. It is not the same thing to shed tears for sins and to touch the body of the Lord. It is not the same thing to fall at the knees of the brethren and to serve the Eucharist to the people from an elevated place. It’s another thing to grieve over what you were, and another thing is to despise sin and be surrounded by glory in the church. You, who yesterday sacrilegiously proclaimed the Son of God to be a creation; you, who daily, being worse than a Jew, threw stones of blasphemy at Christ, whose hands are full of blood, whose pen was the spear of a warrior, you, an adulterer, enter the virgin church one hour after your conversion? If you repent of your sins, resign from the priesthood; If you are inclined to sin, remain what you were! Ave. You wax rhetorical and indulge in empty declamation in order to evade the difficulties encountered in the dispute. Please, leave the commonplaces and go back straight to the subject: after that, if you wish, we’ll talk in more detail. L. There is no declamation here. Sorrow surpasses patience; talk as you like, prove as you like, you will never convince that the same thing: a repentant bishop and a layman. Ave. Since you stubbornly defend that the position of a bishop is different from that of a layman, then to shorten the dispute, I agree with you and will not regret that I will fight with you, giving up my place to you. Explain to me why you accept a layman coming from the Arians, but do not accept a bishop? L. I accept a layman because he confesses his error; and the Lord desires better the sinner’s repentance than his death. Ave. So accept the bishop too: because he also confesses his error, and the Lord better desires the sinner’s repentance than death. L. If he admits that he was mistaken, then how can he remain a bishop? Let the priesthood lay down, and I will give permission to the repentant. Ave. I will answer you in your own words. If a layman admits that he was mistaken, then how can he remain a layman? Let him resign from the lay priesthood, i.e. baptism, and I will give permission to the penitent. For it is written: “And he made us kings and priests to God his Father” (Rev. 1:6). And again: “the tongue is holy, the people acquired by the royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9). Everything that is impermissible for a Christian is equally impermissible for both a bishop and a layman. He who repents condemns his past. If it is not permissible for a repentant bishop to remain what he was, it is not permissible for a repentant layman to continue what he repents of. L. We accept the laity because no one would be converted if he knew that he would have to receive a second baptism; and through this, by rejecting them, we would be the cause of their death. Ave. By accepting a layman, you save one soul by this acceptance; and by accepting the bishop I am adding to the church, I will not say the inhabitants of one city, but the whole region that he governs; If I reject him, he will drag many with him into destruction. Why do I ask you to apply to the salvation of the whole world the same rule that guides you in accepting a few. But you don’t like it, and you are so hard-hearted, and at the same time so unreasonably lenient, that you consider the one who gave baptism to be an enemy of Christ, and the one who accepted - a son. We do not contradict ourselves, but either accept, together with the people, the bishop who makes them a Christian people, or, if we do not accept the bishop, we consider it necessary to reject the people too. L. Tell me, I ask you, have you read what is said about bishops: “You are the salt of the earth. If the salt becomes overwhelming, how will it be salted? It will be of no use to anyone, but let him be thrown out and trampled under foot of men” (Matthew 5:13), and the same goes for the fact that a priest pleads with God for a people who have sinned, but no one else pleads for a priest (1 Samuel 3)? Both of these scriptures agree on one point. For just as salt seasons all food, and there is nothing in itself so pleasant that it would be pleasant to the taste without it, so the bishop serves as a seasoning for the whole world and for his own church; and if he becomes possessed either through renunciation (of Christ), or through heresy, or through lust, and to say in one word - through all kinds of sins: then from whom will he receive seasoning, when he himself was seasoning for everyone? For the priest makes his sacrifice for the layman, lays his hand on the subordinate, calls for the return of the Holy Spirit, and thus, “given over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that the spirit may be saved” (1 Cor. 5:5), reconciles him to the altar with a prayer pronounced in the hearing of the people, and does not restore the health of one member until all the members are united together. A father easily forgives his son when he asks his mother for his child. So, if a repentant layman is restored to the church with the title that we spoke about, and in the same state he receives permission in which he previously mourned his sins, then it is obvious that a priest who has been defrocked cannot be restored to the same place; because he will either lose his priesthood if he repents, or, while continuing to enjoy honor, he cannot be returned to the church according to the rite of a penitent. And you spoil the taste of the church with your overflowing salt, you place on the altar someone who, thrown out, should lie on the dung, trampled upon by all people! And where will the well-known apostolic commandment be: “It is fitting for a bishop to be without blemish, like a builder of God” (Titus 1:7); and again: “Let everyone tempt himself, and so let him come” (1 Cor. 11:28)? Where is the Lord’s saying: “Do not cast your pearls before swine” (Matthew 7:6)? If you understand this to be said about everyone in general, then how much more precautions should you take in relation to priests, when you should be so wary even of the laity? “Depart,” says the Lord through Moses, “from the tabernacles of these hard-hearted men, and do not touch all who are like them, lest you perish altogether in their sin” (Num. 16:26). And again in the twelve prophets: “demand them like bread,” crying; “all who eat you will be defiled” (Hos. 9:4). And in the Gospel the Lord says: “The lamp of the body is the eye,” i.e., the luminary for the church is the bishop. “If your eye is simple, your whole body will be light” (Matt. 6:22). For when the priest preaches the true faith, darkness is dispelled from the hearts of all. ). This means that God kindles the flame of his knowledge in the bishop, so that it does not only shine for himself, but brings benefit to everyone. And in conclusion he says: “If your eye is evil, your whole body will be dark. Even if there is light in you, there is darkness, then the darkness is greater” (Matthew 6:23)! And fair enough. If a bishop is appointed to the church in order to keep the people from going astray, then what will be the wandering among the people when the teacher himself goes astray! How can one who is a sinner himself forgive sins? How can a blasphemer become a saint? Where does light come to me if my eye becomes blind? Oh woe! The Church of Christ is ruled by a disciple of the Antichrist! And what is the purpose of what was said: you cannot “work two masters” (Matthew 6:24)? And another: “What communication is there between light and darkness? What agreement does Christ have with Belial? (2 Cor. 6:14–15). We read in the Old Testament: “Whose man will have dishonor and vice, let him not begin to offer gifts” to the Lord (Lev. 21:17). And again: “Let those who are present to the Lord God be pure, lest the Lord despise them” (Ex. 19:22). And there: “those who approach the saints, let them not take on sin; Let them not die” (Lev.22:9). Much else that could be cited ad infinitum, I leave for the sake of brevity. It is not the quantity of evidence that matters, but the importance of it. From this it is clear that you have spoiled the entire dough of the church with a little leaven, and today you are accepting the Eucharist from the hands of someone whom yesterday you spat on as an idol. Ave. Although, as I recall, you have spoken a lot and in abundance from the sacred books, but if you go around this entire forest, you will fall into my snares. Let, as you wish, the Arian bishop be an enemy of Christ, let him be like salt, a lamp without a light, an eye without a pupil; on this basis, you will, of course, come to the conclusion that one who does not have salt himself cannot salt, the blind cannot enlighten, and the extinguished cannot light. But how can you say that the cook has no salt when you eat the food he has seasoned? Your church glows from his light, and you slander that his lamp has gone out? Gives you eyes, but he himself is blind? So, I ask you, either recognize the right to make a sacrifice for those whose baptism you approve, or reject the baptism performed by those whom you do not consider a priest. For it cannot be that a saint at the baptismal sanctuary can be a sinner at the altar. L. But I accept a repentant layman through the laying on of hands and the invocation of the Holy Spirit in the conviction that heretics cannot communicate the Holy Spirit. Ave. All the paths of your reasoning converge at one crossroads, and, according to the custom of timid deer, running away from the imaginary flapping of wings 2, you become entangled in the strongest net. For if a person is baptized into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, he becomes the church of the Lord; if, after the destruction of the ancient church, it is built into a new church of the Trinity: then how does it come to you that the Arians can have their sins forgiven without the descent of the Holy Spirit? How is a soul that does not have the Holy Spirit cleansed from ancient impurities? For it is not water that washes the soul, but it itself is first washed by the Spirit, so that it can then spiritually wash others. “The Spirit of the Lord,” says Moses, “was moving on the top of the waters” (Gen. 1:2). From where it is clear that baptism does not happen without the Holy Spirit. The Jewish reservoir of Bethesda received the power to heal physically weakened members only through the descent of an angel; and you present to me a soul washed with plain water, as if in a bathhouse. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who not so much purified himself with the font as purified all the waters in his font, barely raised his head from the river, immediately received the Holy Spirit; not because He was ever without the Holy Spirit; He was born in the flesh from the Holy Spirit; but to show us that true baptism is the one in which the Holy Spirit descends. So, if an Arian cannot communicate the Holy Spirit, he cannot baptize; because church baptism without the Holy Spirit is insignificant. But you, who receive the baptized person and then call on the (unreceived) Holy Spirit, you must either baptize him, because he could not be baptized without the Holy Spirit, or, if he is baptized in the Spirit, stop calling upon him the Spirit whom he received at the time of his baptism. L. But have mercy, haven’t you read in the Acts of the Apostles that those who were already baptized by John, when they answered the apostles’ question that they had not even heard what the Holy Spirit is, then received the Holy Spirit? From this it is clear that someone can be baptized and not have the Holy Spirit. Ave. I suppose that the hearers are not so ignorant of the divine Scriptures that much should be said to solve this objection. But before I begin to respond to your words, listen to what confusion, according to your concepts, appears in the Scriptures. What does it mean that John, in his baptism, could not give the Holy Spirit to others when he gave Him to Christ? And who is John himself? “A voice crying in the wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord; you are upright, create the paths of our God” (Isa.40:3; Matt.3:3). – Then he said: “Behold, the lamb of God takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). To put it briefly, he cried out from his mother’s womb: “And where do I get this from, so that the mother of my Lord may come to me?” (Luke 1:43). And he did not give the Holy Spirit, which Philip the deacon gave to the eunuch (Acts 8), which Ananias gave to Paul (Acts 9)? But perhaps it will seem that I am boldly extolling John above everyone. Listen to the words of the Lord: “The sickness of John the Baptist is not born to those born of women” (Matthew 11:11). None of the prophets is destined to foretell Christ or point him out with his finger. And what is the need for me to go into praise of such a husband when God the Father himself calls him an angel? “Behold,” he says, “I send my angel before you, who will prepare your way before you” (Matthew 11:10). Indeed, he was an angel, - he who, after his mother’s womb, found shelter in the desert, for whom playing with snakes was a child’s play, 3 he, who, with the eyes of Christ, considered it unworthy to look at anything else, who, in the sweetest words of God, honey and honey, he trained his tongue, worthy of God. I hasten to get to the point, I will say that it was fitting for the Forerunner of the Lord to grow. So, he, so and so great, did not give the Holy Spirit, which Cornelius the centurion received before his baptism? for the remission of sins, that is, for the future remission that was to follow, through the sanctification of Christ. For it is written: “John baptized in the wilderness, and preached the gospel of repentance for the remission of sins.” And a little later: “And I was baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing my sins” (Mark 1:4-5). Just as he himself was the Forerunner of the Lord, so his baptism was a preliminary to the baptism of the Lord. “He is from the earth,” he said, “he speaks from the earth; He who comes from heaven is above all” (John 3:31). And again: “As I baptize with water, ... with that you baptize with the Spirit” (Matthew 3:11). If John, as he himself confessed, did not baptize spiritually, then it follows that he did not forgive sins, because no person is forgiven of sins without the Holy Spirit. But perhaps, out of argument, you will begin to prove that John’s baptism forgave sins because it came from heaven; in this case, point out what more we receive in the baptism of Christ? What forgives sins frees us from Gehenna. Whatever frees you from Gehenna is perfect. Baptism cannot be called perfect if it is not based on the cross and resurrection of Christ. So, in view of the words of John himself: “It is fitting for him to grow, but for me to grow small” (John 3:30), you are perversely pious; because you attribute more to the baptism of a slave than it had, but you destroy the baptism of the Lord, leaving no place for it. What does this conclusion lead to? So that you are not surprised if those baptized by John received the Holy Spirit later, through the laying on of apostolic hands; for it is known that they did not receive remission of sins without faith, which was to follow in the future. But you, who accept someone baptized by the Arians and recognize for him a baptism that is perfect, on what basis do you call on the Holy Spirit, as if he lacks something insignificant, when the baptism of Christ without the Holy Spirit is insignificant? However, I have spread myself too thin and am throwing light arrows from afar, when I could have repelled the enemy’s attack with my chest. John's baptism was so imperfect that, as we know, those baptized by it were later baptized by the baptism of Christ. For history says this: “Now Apollos was in Corinth, and Paul, having passed through the upper regions of Asia, came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples, saying to them: Have you received the Holy Spirit by nature, having believed? They decided to him: but below, if the Holy Spirit is hearing. I say to them: why are you being baptized? They rekosha: in John's baptism. Paul said: John therefore baptize with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people, that in him that is to come they may believe, that is, in Jesus, for the remission of sins. Hearing himself being baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. And I laid Paul’s hand on her, and immediately the Holy Spirit came upon her” (Acts 19:1–6). So, if they were baptized with true and legal church baptism, and as a result of this they received the Holy Spirit: then you, too, imitate the example of the apostles, baptize those who do not have the baptism of Christ, and you can call on the Holy Spirit on them. L. Those who feel thirsty in a dream greedily fall to the river with their lips. But the more they drink, the more they thirst. This is how you appear to me when you collect refutations from everywhere against the objection I have proposed, and the question, nevertheless, remains unresolved. Don’t you even know the custom of churches according to which hands are laid on the baptized after baptism, and thus the Holy Spirit is called upon them? You may ask, where is it written about him? - In the Acts of the Apostles. However, even if the evidence of Scripture had not been preserved, the agreement on this subject of the whole world has the force of a positive commandment. For many other things observed in the church according to tradition have the force of written law; This is the custom of immersing your head in the font three times, and upon leaving, tasting milk and honey combined together as a sign of childhood (spiritual), and also on Sunday and throughout Pentecost to pray without bending your knees and to allow fasting. There are many other things which are observed intelligently without Scripture. From this you see that we follow the custom of the church, although before the invocation of the Holy Spirit it is known that someone is baptized. Ave. I do not deny that there is a custom in churches according to which the bishop comes to invoke the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands to those who have been baptized by elders and deacons far from large cities. But what are you doing, applying church laws to heresy, and reconciling the chastity of your virgin with the brothels of harlots? If the bishop lays his hand, he lays it on those who have been baptized in the correct faith, who have believed in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in three persons, one being. An Arian who believed in nothing else but (I ask the listeners to close their ears so as not to be desecrated by such ungodly words) in the Father, the one true God, in Jesus Christ the Savior, creation, and in the Holy Spirit, the servant of both, how will he receive from the church the Holy Spirit, when he has not yet received the remission of sins? The Holy Spirit dwells only in a clean home, and does not dwell in a church that does not have a leader of the true faith. If you now ask why a person baptized in the church only through the episcopal hand receives the Holy Spirit, imparted, as we affirm, in true baptism: then know that this custom arose from the fact that the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles after the Ascension of Christ. And we find that in many places this is also usually done more for the honor of the priesthood than according to the law of necessity. Otherwise, if the Holy Spirit descended only through the prayer of a bishop, then one should mourn those who in villages, fortifications and in more remote places, having been baptized by presbyters and deacons, die before the bishops visited them. The welfare of the church depends on the rank of the high priest: if he is not given some extraordinary and superior power over all, then as many schisms will appear in the churches as there are priests. From this it turned out that without unction and the command of the bishop, neither the presbyter nor the deacon have the right to baptize. We know that this is often allowed even to the laity, if only necessity requires it. For as one has received, so one can also give. It cannot be thought that the eunuch baptized by Philip the deacon did not have the Holy Spirit, about whom the Scripture says: “And they both went down to the water; and Philip baptize him. And when the water came up, the Holy Spirit attacked the executioner” (descended on the eunuch) (Acts 8:38–39). But perhaps you are thinking of objecting to me that - “When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, and they came down to pray for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for not one of them had yet come” (ibid. vv. 14-16). But why this happened, find out from what follows. He himself (the Holy Spirit) says: “But we were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then lay your hand on me and receive the Holy Spirit” (ibid. vv. 16-17). If you say this time that you are doing the same thing, because the heretics did not baptize in the Holy Spirit: then know that Philip did not separate from the apostles, that he had the same church, preached the same Lord Jesus Christ, was truly a deacon of those who then laid hands. And you, who say that the Arians do not have a church, but synagogues, that they are not clergy of God, but worshipers of creatures and idols - how do you claim that you adhere to the same rule when the circumstances of the commission are different? L. Although you strongly and steadily repel my attacks directed directly at you, you retreat back and do not protect your bare back from the arrows. Even though the Arians do not have baptism, they cannot give the Holy Spirit, since they have not received remission of sins; all this contributes to my victory, and the arguments you prepare for your defeat work for my triumph. An Arian does not have baptism, but how does he have the priesthood? They don’t have a layman 4, but how can there be a bishop? I cannot accept a beggar, but you accept a king? You yield camps to the enemy; should we reject the defector? Ave. If you remembered the previous one, you would already know my answer to you; but, carried away by the passion to contradict, you evaded the subject, according to the custom of some, who are chatterboxes rather than eloquent people, who, not knowing how to reason, do not stop arguing. At this time, I am not so much condemning or defending the Arians as I am inclining my speech to the fact that we accept a bishop on the same basis as you accept a layman. You give permission to the erring one; and I forgive the repentant. If the one who baptizes could not harm the baptized with his faith, then the one who delivers could not defile the appointed priest with his faith. Heresy is subtle; and therefore simple souls easily fall into it. Seduction is equally possible for both a layman and a bishop. But the bishop could not be mistaken. But in fact, students of Plato and Aristophanes are elected to the bishopric. For who can you find among them who has not studied them perfectly? Finally, those currently being ordained among scholars are not concerned about extracting their essence from the scriptures, but about how to delight the ears of the people with the flowers of recitation. Moreover, the Arian heresy stands on the side of more worldly wisdom, and borrows its provisions from Aristotle as a source. So, according to the custom of children arguing among themselves, what you said, that’s what I will say; what you asserted, and I will assert; what I rejected, I will reject. An Arian baptizes, therefore he is a bishop; If he doesn’t baptize, you reject the layman, and I won’t accept the bishop. I will follow you wherever you go, and we will either stumble in the mud together or climb out of it. L. But the layman should be forgiven because he joined (heresy) out of simplicity, considering it to be the true church of God, and, as a believer, received forgiveness according to his faith. Ave. You say new things - that someone was made a Christian by someone who was not a Christian himself. The one who comes to the Arians 5 received baptism in what faith? Without a doubt, the same as the Arians had. Otherwise, if he himself believed properly and consciously accepted baptism from heretics, then he can no longer be excused for error. However, it would be completely absurd if a student coming to a teacher was already an expert in the matter before he began to study; it would be the same if the one who converted from the veneration of idols knew Christ better than the one who teaches him. But you say: he believed in simplicity in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and therefore received baptism. What, I ask you, is this simplicity - not knowing what you believe in? I believed in simplicity... What did I believe? Of course, hearing the three names, he believed in three gods and became an idolater; or under three words, having believed in the three-named God, he fell into the heresy of Sabellius. Or, having learned from the Arians, he believed that the one true God is the Father, and that the Son and the Holy Spirit are creatures. I don’t know what else he could have believed in: perhaps, if he had already received an education in the Capitol, he studied the Trinity homousion 6 . Did you learn that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate not by nature, but by persons? Did you learn that the name of the Son is in the Father, and the name of the Father in the Son? But it is extremely ridiculous to assert that anyone should enter into discussions about faith before he believed, that he would know the sacrament before he was initiated into it; so that the one who baptizes thinks differently about God, and the one who is baptized differently. Moreover, when during baptism, after confession of the Trinity, they solemnly ask: do you believe in the holy church, do you believe in the remission of sins - which church, in your opinion, did he believe in? To the Aryan church? But they don't have it. To our church? But someone who was baptized outside of it cannot believe in a church that he did not know. L. Since you make fun of everything, and behind the shield of your speech you hide from the arrows we shoot, then I will throw a spear that with its strength will pierce the bulge of your shield and your crackling words; I will no longer tolerate tricks defeating courage. A layman, even outside the church, but faithfully baptized, is accepted through repentance; a bishop either does not repent, and in this case remains a priest, or if he has brought repentance, he ceases to be a bishop. Therefore, we do right by accepting a layman if he repents, and rejecting a bishop if he wants to retain the priesthood. Ave. It is difficult to dodge an arrow fired from a tight bowstring. It will reach the one it is thrown at before the shield covers it. And your positions, on the contrary, are not able to pierce the enemy, because they are thrown without an iron tip. And this spear of yours, which you threw with all your might, with which you frightened us, I will reflect, as they say, with a click. The point is not that a bishop cannot be a penitent, but a layman can; but about whether the heretic has baptism? If, as is clear, he does not have baptism, then how can he be a repentant without first becoming a Christian? Prove to me that a layman coming from the Arians has baptism, then I will not refuse him repentance. If he is not a Christian, if he did not have a priest who would make him a Christian, then how will a person who is still an unbeliever repent? L. I ask you, abandoning the philosophical method of proof, speak to me with Christian simplicity, if, however, you are a follower not of dialecticians, but of fishermen. Do you think it is fair for an Arian to be a bishop? Ave. You prove that he is a bishop by accepting those baptized by him; but for this you deserve censure because you fence yourself off from us with walls, while agreeing with us in the faith and in accepting the Arians. L. I have already asked you to speak to me not in a philosophical way, but in a Christian way. Ave. Do you want to learn or are you arguing? L. I really argue because I am trying to get from you the basis for your actions. Ave. If you argue, then you already have the answer. I accept a bishop from the Arians on the same basis on which you accept someone baptized by the Arians. If you want to study, join my squad. The enemy is defeated, and the student is taught. L. I cannot become a student without first hearing the teacher’s sermon. Ave. Since you dodge, and want to learn from me only in order to master the enemy: then I will teach you your way. We agree in faith, we agree in accepting heretics; Let us also agree in the place of meeting. L. This does not mean teaching, but thinking. Ave. Since you ask for peace without leaving your shield, we also graft the olive branch onto the sword. L. So I raise my hands, I concede, you win. But laying down my arms, I ask about the meaning of the sacrament in relation to which you require an oath from me. Ave. I congratulate you on this, and I thank Christ my God for the fact that you have complacently moved from the deceit of the Sards to a general way of thinking and do not say, as some do, “save me, O Lord, for I am in need of the venerable one” (Ps. 11:1). Their wicked voice abolishes the cross of Christ, subdues the Son of God to the devil, and the lament with which the Lord mourned sinners now applies to all people: “What profit is there in my blood, if I ever descend into corruption” (Ps. 29:10)? No, God did not die in vain. The mighty one is bound, and his vessels are plundered (Mark 3:27). The Father’s greeting was fulfilled: “Ask from me and I will give your tongues your inheritance, and your possession the ends of the earth” (Ps. 2:8). “The springs of water appeared, and the foundations of the world were revealed” (Ps. 17:16). “Put your dwelling in the sun, ... and there is nothing that will hide its warmth” ( Ps. 19:5, 7). The psalmist filled with God sings: “the enemy has run out of weapons to the end, and their cities have been destroyed” (Ps. 9:7). And where, I ask you, are these extremely religious, or rather extremely ignorant people, who claim that there are many more synagogues than churches? How are the cities of the devil destroyed, and in the end, i.e. until the end of time, are the idols overthrown? If Christ does not have a church, or has one only in Sardinia, then he is extremely poor. If Satan owns Britain, Gaul, the East, the peoples of India, the barbarian peoples, and briefly the whole world: then how did the spoils of the cross end up in one corner of the universe? Of course, the powerful enemy yielded the Iberian otter to Christ: he considered it unworthy to rule over exhausted people and a poor region... If they think to find support for themselves in the well-known expression of the Gospel: “Do you think that the Son of Man, when he comes, will find faith on earth?” (Luke 18:8), then let them know that here we are talking about the faith about which the Lord himself spoke: “your faith will save you” (Matthew 9:22). And in another place about the centurion: “I have not found much faith in Israel” (Matthew 8:10). And again to the apostles: “Why are you fearful, you of little faith?” (Matthew 8:26). And also in that place: “If you have faith like the grain of a mountain, you say to this mountain, “Pass from here, there, and it will pass away” (Matthew 17:20). The centurion or the woman who was exhausted by twelve years of bleeding did not believe in the sacrament of the Trinity, which was revealed to the apostles after the resurrection of Christ; it was not their faith that was required in the sacrament that caused the praise they deserved. Simplicity of heart and a soul devoted to its God are approved: “For it says in my heart: If I just touch his robe, I will be saved” (Matthew 9:21). This is the kind of faith that God has said is rare. This is the faith that is difficult to find perfect even among those who believe well. “Be with you,” says God, “according to your faith” (Matthew 9:29) I would not like to hear these words. For I will perish if it be according to my faith. True, I believe in God the Father, in God the Son, in God the Holy Spirit - I believe in one God, and, however, I do not want it to happen to me according to my faith. For often the enemy man comes, and among the harvest of the Lord he sows tares. That is not what I say. I want there to be something more important than professed faith and spiritual purity; but the fact that faith in God is alien to any doubt is difficult to find. I'm standing in prayer. If I didn't believe, I wouldn't pray. But if I truly believed, I would cleanse the heart with which God is seen, I would beat myself in the chest with my fists, wet my cheeks with tears, I would tremble with my body, turn pale in my face, I would throw myself at the feet of my Lord, wet them with tears, wipe them with my hair - and I would at least cling to the wood of the cross and not leave it before asking for mercy. And now, during my prayer, I very often either stroll through the galleries, 8 or calculate percentages, or, having come across a shameful thought, I picture in my imagination such things that I am ashamed to talk about. Where is faith here? Is this what Jonah prayed, do you think? Is it really three youths? Is Daniel like this among the lions? Is that, at least, the thief on the cross? But I said this only as an example, to clarify the idea. I leave it to everyone to deal with their own heart and be convinced from the experience of a lifetime how rare it is to find a faithful soul who would not do anything out of a desire for fame, for the sake of people’s rumors. Is it inevitable that the one who fasts for God, who extends his hand to the poor, gives a loan to God? Vices are adjacent to virtues. It is difficult to be satisfied with only one judge - God. L. You warned my question: because I was saving this scripture for myself towards the end. And almost all of our people (though not mine anymore) use it in disputes as a battering ram 9 ; I'm glad it's broken and completely broken. But I ask you, explain to me, not as an opponent, but as a student, with complete detail, the reason why the Church accepts those coming from the Arians. For, although I cannot answer you in words, in my soul I still do not agree with you. Ave. During the reign of Constantius, during the consulate of Eusebius and Hypatius, under the pretext of unity and faith, unbelief was established in writing, as is now recognized. At that time, nothing seemed so good and so appropriate to the servant of God as maintaining unity and not breaking off communication with the rest of the world, especially when the presentation from the outside no longer represented anything sacrilegious. We believe, they said, in the one true God, the Almighty Father. We confess the same thing. We believe in the only begotten Son of God, before all ages and before every beginning, begotten of God. The only begotten, one from one Father, God from God, similar to the Father who begat him according to the scriptures, whose birth no one knows except his father, the Father. It was not inserted here: there was a time when he did not exist, or from the non-existent creation there is the Son of God. To believe in God from God is perfect faith. And they called him the only begotten, one, from one Father. What is born? Obviously not created. Birth eliminated the thought of creation. To this they added: who came down from heaven, conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified by Pontius Pilate, rose from the dead on the third day, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father, is to come to judge the living and the dead. The words sounded pious, and no one suspected that poison was dissolved in this honey drink assigned to the public. Rejecting the word usia (essence), they gave a plausible reason for this. “Since this word,” they said, “is not found in the Scriptures, and with its novelty it seduces many of the simplest, it is prudent to exclude it.” Bishops did not fuss over a word when the meaning was not in danger. Moreover, at the very time when the rumor spread among the people that there was deception in the presentation (of the faith), Valens, Bishop of Murzen, who signed it, in the presence of Taurus the praetor, who was at the council by order of the emperor, confessed that he was not an Arian and that he deeply despised Arian blasphemies. But since this happened in secret, the popular rumor did not subside. Therefore, on another day, when the bishops and a multitude of people gathered together in the Ariminian church, Musonius, bishop of the Byzacene region, whom everyone considered superior for the sake of his age, said the following: “We will order one of us to read to your holiness what has been revealed among the people and has reached our ears, so that everyone can unanimously condemn what is bad and should be removed from our ears and hearts.” All bishops answered in the affirmative. When Claudius, bishop of the region of Picenum, began, by general order, to read those blasphemies that were rumored to be attributed to Valens, Valens, recognizing them as his own, raised his voice and said: “Whoever claims that Christ the Lord, the Son of God, was not born of the Father before the ages, let him be anathema.” Everyone responded: let him be anathema. “Whoever denies that the Son is like the Father according to the scriptures, let him be anathema.” Everyone answered: let him be anathema. “Whoever says that the Son of God is not co-eternal with the Father, let him be anathema.” Everyone shouted: let him be anathema. “Whoever says that the Son of God is a creation, like other creatures, let him be anathema.” They also said: let there be anathema. “Whoever says that the Son is from something that does not exist, and not from God the Father, let him be anathema.” Everyone shouted: let him be anathema. “Whoever says that there was a time when the Son was not, let him be anathema.” With a kind of clapping and stamping of feet, all the bishops and the whole church listened together to Valens' explanation. If anyone considers this to be our invention, let him rummage through the public archives. At least the church cupboards are full and the memory of the event is fresh. Even the people who were present at that council are alive, and, which confirms the truth, the Arians themselves do not deny that things happened as we said. And so, when everyone praised Valens to the skies, and with repentance condemned their suspicion of him, the same Claudius, who began the reading above, said: “There is still something that my lord and brother Valens has overlooked; If you wish, we will discuss this together so that there is no confusion left. Whoever says that the Son of God, although he exists before all ages, is not before all time, so that something preceded Him, let him be anathema.” Everyone said: let there be anathema. And many other things that seemed suspicious were condemned by Valens on the instructions of Claudius. Whoever wants to know more about this, let him read in the acts of the Ariminian Council, from where we borrowed what was told. After this event the cathedral was closed. Everyone rejoiced as they returned to their areas; because both the emperor and all good people cared about connecting the east and the west with mutual communication. But atrocities do not hide for long, and a poorly bandaged wound opens up on its own. Valens, Ursatius and other accomplices of their lewdness (the worthy ones, that is, the priests of Christ) began to boast of their victory, claiming that they did not deny that the Son is a creation, but denied that he is like other creatures. The destruction of the word usia proclaimed the condemnation of the Nicene faith. The whole world was deeply saddened and amazed to see itself as an Arian. As a result of this, some remained in communication only with their flock, others began to correspond with those confessors who were exiled in the case of Athanasius; some mourned with despair that a better union had begun. And few, as is already typical of people, defended the error with intent. The ship of the apostles 10 was in danger; the winds carried him, the waves beat on his sides; there was no longer any hope left: but the Lord awakens, commands the storm, the beast dies 11, silence is restored. I'll say it more clearly. All bishops, deprived of their sees, thanks to the leniency of the new emperor 12, return to the churches. At that time, Egypt again received its victorious Athanasius; the Gali church embraced Hilary returning from the battle; On the occasion of the return of Eusebius, Italy shed her mourning clothes. The bishops came together, who unconsciously found themselves among the heretics, having fallen into the Ariminian network, swore by the body of the Lord and everything that was holy in the church, that in their conscience they did not suspect anything wrong. We thought, they said, that the meaning corresponded to the words, and did not imagine that in the Church of God, where straightforwardness and sincerity of confession reign, one thing could be hidden in the heart, another expressed on the lips. We have been deceived by good opinions about bad people. As priests of Christ, we did not think of fighting against Christ. And many other things that I am leaving out for the sake of brevity, they expressed with tears, ready to condemn both the previous signatures and all Arian blasphemies. I will now ask these extremely pious ones, what would they think to do with those who made such a confession? They will say that, having deposed the previous bishops, they would have ordained new ones. I had such an experience. But who, not being his own enemy, would allow himself to be deposed? Especially when the whole people, who loved their priests, almost turned to stones and ran to kill those who deposed them? Let them, they say, remain in communication only with their flock. But this would mean, through unreasonable severity, handing over the whole world to the devil. Why would they condemn those who were not Arians? Why would they dissect a church that was in unanimous faith? Why, finally, out of their stubbornness, would they convert those who believed correctly into Arians? If we know that at the Council of Nicaea itself, which was convened on the occasion of Arian treachery, eight Arian bishops were adopted, and if at present there is not a single bishop in the world except those appointed by that council: then how could they act contrary to the council, because of which they suffered exile? L. Were the Arians accepted at that time? Tell me who they are. Ave. Eusebius, Bishop of Nicodemus; Theognius, Bishop of Nicaea; Saras, who was then presbyter of Libya; Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and others that would take a long time to count. And the very head of them and the culprit of all evil is Presbyter Arius, Deacon Hezoius, who was Bishop of Antioch after Eudoxius, and Reader Achilles. These three clerics of the Alexandrian church were the founders of that heresy. L. But if someone were to claim that they were not accepted, how could he be exposed? Ave. There are still alive people who were present at that council. And if this is not enough (since, due to the passage of time, such people are already rare and it is impossible to find witnesses in every place), let us read the acts and episcopal signatures of the Nicene Council; and we will find that among others the homousion was signed by those who, as we said above, were accepted. L. If you can, show that after the Council of Nicaea they committed treachery. Ave. You were honest in making such a remark. Those who do not believe that something happened that they do not want usually deny it by closing their eyes. But how come they did not change later, they, for whose sake the council was convened and for whose epistles and books published before the council exist to this day? So, if at that time three hundred, even more, several such people were accepted as bishops, whom they could have rejected without any damage to the church, then I am surprised that there are some, and, moreover, supporters of the Nicene confession of faith, so severe that they believe that the three confessors who returned from exile 13 should not, in the extreme, have done for the sake of the salvation of the whole world what so many and such torments did of their own free will! But let's continue the story. Upon the return of the confessors, the Council of Alexandria then decreed that, with the exception of the leaders of the heresies, whose error could not be excused, the penitents should be added to the church: not because former heretics could be bishops, but because it was known that those received were not heretics. The West agreed with this definition; and with such a necessary measure the world was plucked from the jaws of Satan. Now we have reached a very unpleasant place, where I am forced to speak differently about blessed Lucifer than his merits and my love for mankind would require. But what to do? The truth opens the mouth, and the heart, accustomed to it, prompts the tongue to speak involuntarily. At such a time for the church, in view of such ferocity of the wolves, he, having separated several sheep, completely abandoned the rest of the flock. He himself is a good shepherd, but he left a lot of prey for the animals. I am silent about what some of the slanderers claim for certain, that he did this out of love for glory and in order to pass on his name to posterity, as well as out of enmity against Eusebius, which began with the Antioch controversy. I don’t believe anything like that about such a husband. One thing I constantly maintain on this score is that he disagrees with us in words, and not in deeds, if he accepts those who received baptism from the Arians. L. Not at all, and as I understand at the present time, what was told to me before was more misleading than the one that clarified the matter! I thank Christ God, who poured a ray of truth into my mind; From now on, I will no longer use blasphemous lips to call his virgin the harlot of the devil. There remains one thing that I ask you to explain to me: how should I look at Hilary, who does not even accept those baptized by Arians? Ave. Since Hilary, being a deacon, fell away from the church, and himself believing that there was disorder in the world, could not celebrate the Eucharist, because he did not have bishops and elders, he could not baptize without the Eucharist. And since he had already died, the sect was destroyed along with the man: because the deacon could not ordain any cleric as his successor. And the church does not exist without priests. But, leaving aside a few people who are themselves both laity and bishops, consider what you need to think about the whole church. L. You, as they say, solved the great question in three words. But while you are speaking, it seems to me that I agree with you: and when you are silent, I do not understand how misunderstandings arise again regarding the reason why those baptized by heretics are accepted. Ave. I told you the same thing: consider what you need to think about the whole church. This very, as you say, bewilderment worries many. Perhaps my story will be long; but the more beneficial it will be for the truth. Noah's Ark represented the church, as the Apostle Peter says; in Noah’s ark “there are few, that is, eight souls that were saved from the water. His imagination now saves us through baptism” (1 Pet. 3:20-21). Just as in that one there were all kinds of animals, so in this one there are people of all nationalities and customs. Just as there were a leopard with goats and a wolf with sheep, so here the righteous and sinners are mentioned, i.e. vessels of gold and silver, along with wooden and clay ones. The ark had its nests; The church also has many places of residence. Eight human souls were saved in Noah's ark; and our Ecclesiastes commands to give “a portion to the seventh and to give a portion to the osmies” (Eccl. 11:2), i.e., to believe in both covenants. Therefore, some psalms are inscribed “about the osmies,” and in the one hundred and eighteenth psalm the righteous is given instruction in eight verses, adapted to each of the letters (of the Hebrew alphabet). The eight beatitudes, which the Lord spoke to the disciples on the mountain, laid the foundation of the church. Ezekiel also found the osmeric number in the structure of the church. You will find many other things in the Scriptures marked with this number. So, the raven is released from the ark, and he does not return; and the dove proclaims peace to the earth. So it is in church baptism, after expelling the ominous bird, i.e. devil, the dove of the Holy Spirit proclaims peace to our land. The ark under construction, starting from thirty (three hundred?) lactes, is gradually reduced to one lacte. Likewise, the church, which has many degrees, is completed at the end by deacons, presbyters and bishops. The ark was in danger in the flood, and so are the churches in the world. Coming out of the ark, Noah planted grapes, and, having drunk from them, became drunk; Christ, born in the flesh, planted the church and suffered. The eldest son ridiculed his naked father, and the younger one covered him; The Jews also mocked the crucified God, and the pagans honored him. A day would not be enough for me if I began to reveal all the secrets of the ark, comparing it with the church. As pertinent to the present subject, I will show who among us are eagles, who are doves, who are lions and deer, who are worms and snakes. There are not only sheep in the church, and it is not only the clean birds that fly in it; bread is sown in the field, and they stand over the brilliant sowing, like lords, burdock and thistle What does a farmer do? Pulls out the cockle? But in this case, all the bread is trampled. The village industry daily drives away birds by knocking, scares them away with scarecrows: here they hit with a whip, there they hang a scarecrow. But even at the same time, either agile wild goats or frisky wild donkeys make raids; there small animals collect bread in their granaries dug in the ground, here swarming herds of ants ruin the harvest. This is already happening. No one owns the field without a care in the world. When the householder fell asleep, the enemy man sowed tares; the slaves invited him to go to pluck them out, but the master left it to himself to separate the tares from the bread (Matthew 13). These are the vessels of wrath and mercy in the house of God about which the apostle speaks (Rom. 9 and 2 Tim. 2). The day will come when, having opened the church treasury, the Lord will take out the vessels of his wrath, upon the removal of which the saints will say: “She came forth from us, but was not from us; if she had been from us, she would have remained with us” (1 John 2:19). No one can take credit for Christ's victory; no one can judge people until the day of judgment. If the church has already been cleansed, what will we present to the Lord? “There is a way that a man thinks he can live, but the last one leads him to the bottom of hell” (Prov. 14:12). Given such a flawed trial, what verdict could be correct? Blessed Cyprian tried to avoid the lakes usually visited, and not to drink the water of others; with the goal of rejecting the baptism of heretics, he, under the then Roman bishop Stephen, who was twenty-second, counting from blessed Peter, compiled an African council on this subject. But his efforts remained in vain. The same bishops who, together with him, decided to rebaptize heretics, later returning to the ancient custom, issued a new definition 14. What to do? Our ancestors passed it on to us this way, but they passed it on to them differently. But why should I talk about the later? The blood of Christ was still fresh in Judea, and the apostles needed confirmation that the body of the Lord was not a dream; another time the apostle suffers the pangs of childbirth because of the Galatians, who deviated from observing the (Jewish) law; and he tries to lead the Corinthians, who do not believe in the resurrection of the body, to the path of truth with many proofs. Then Simon the Magus and his disciple Miandr pretended to be the powers of God; then Basilides invented the supreme God Abraxas, with three hundred and sixty-five births; then Nicholas, who was one of the seven deacons, entering into marriages day and night, dreamed of vile and shameful copulations. I am silent about the heretics of Judaism who overthrew the faithful law; I am silent about the fact that the head of the Samaritans, Dositheus, rejected the prophets, - that the Sadducees, descended from his generation, denied the very resurrection of the body, - that the Pharisees, who separated from the Jews because of unnecessary rituals, took the very name from the separation, - that the Herodians accepted King Herod for Christ. I turn to those heretics who tore up the Gospels. We read about a certain Saturninus, about the Ophites, the Caineans, the Setphoites, Carpocrates, Cerinthos, his follower Ebion, and about other plagues, many of which were discovered during the life of the Apostle John; but we do not read, however, that any of them were rebaptized. Since we have mentioned such a man, we will cite proof from his Apocalypse itself that heretics should be allowed repentance without baptism. The angel of Ephesus is charged with abandonment of love. The angel of the Pergamon church is reproached for eating something sacrificed to idols and for the teaching of the Nicolaitans. The angel of Thyatira condemns the prophetess Jezebel, the food of idols and fornication. And yet, the Lord exhorts all of them to repentance, under the threat of only punishment if they do not convert. He would not have urged them to repentance if He had not forgiven those who repented. Did He say that those baptized in the Nicolaitan faith should be rebaptized, or that hands should be laid on those who at that time believed among the Pergamians, who held the teachings of Balaam? Not at all; but he says: “Repent; or else, I will come to you quickly and make war on you with the sword of my mouth” (Rev. 2:16). But if the disciples of Hilary and those who remained sheep without a shepherd began to refer to the passages of Scripture that blessed Cyprian indicated in favor of the rebaptism of heretics in his letters, then let them know that he exposed these passages without threatening with anathema those who did not want to follow him. He remained in communication with those who did not agree with his way of thinking; but only tried to convince, regarding Novatus and many other heresies that appeared at that time, not to accept anyone from him without condemning his error. He ends his explanation, which he had on this subject with Stephen, the high priest of Rome, as follows: “out of usual respect and sincere affection, we bring this to your attention, beloved brother, being confident that with your piety and orthodoxy, you will agree with what is equally pious and just. However, we know that some, having once conceived something, never leave it and do not easily change their assumptions; but, while maintaining an alliance of peace and harmony with their colleagues, they also retain something of their own, which has once come into use among them. In this regard, we do not force anyone, and we do not issue a law that would take away the right to act in the management of the church at our free discretion: every primate has to give an account of his actions to the Lord.” When he writes to Yubayan about the rebaptism of heretics, at the end of the book he says this: “to the best of our ability - we wrote this briefly to you, beloved brother, without prescribing or imposing our opinion on anyone, especially since each of the bishops acts as he sees fit, having full power to act at his own discretion. We, as far as it depends on us, do not argue over heretics with our colleagues and with bishops; but we maintain divine harmony and the peace of the Lord with them, especially in view of the words of the Apostle: “If anyone imagines being controversial, we are not imams of such a custom, lower than the church of God” (1 Cor. 11:16). Patiently and calmly we observe spiritual love, respect for society, the union of faith, the harmony of the priesthood.” There is also something else that we mention, against which Hilary, this Deucalion of the world, does not dare to make a word. If heretics do not have baptism, and must be rebaptized by the church, because they did not belong to the church, then Hilary himself is not a Christian. For he was baptized in that church, which has always accepted baptism from heretics. Before the Council of Arimin took place, before Lucifer was expelled, Hilary, being a deacon of the Roman Church, received the coming heretics with the baptism that they had received before. Perhaps only the Arians are heretics, and only those baptized by them cannot be accepted, but those baptized by others can! You, Hilary, were a deacon, and received those baptized by the Manichaeans; You were a deacon, and you approved of Ebion's baptism. And after Arius appeared, you suddenly began to hold on to the opposite with all your might. You separate from your servants and open a new bathhouse. If some angel or apostle had baptized you, I would not have reproached you 15 for following him. But if you were born in my womb, if you were fed with the milk of my breast, and you raise a sword against me: then give back what I gave, and then, if you can, be a Christian. I am a harlot, but still your mother. I do not maintain the purity of monogamy, but this was also the case at your conception: I committed adultery with Arius, but I also committed adultery before with Praxeus, Ebion, Cerinthos, Novatus. You embraced, you welcomed adulterers into your mother’s house. I don’t know why one adulterer insults you. If anyone were to deny that our ancestors always accepted heretics, then let him read the letters of Blessed Cyprian, in which he, addressing Stephen, Bishop of Rome, proves the error of the established custom. Let him read the books of Hilary himself about the rebaptism of heretics, which he wrote against us, and find there the consciousness of Hilary himself that Julius, Marcus, Sylvester and other ancient bishops also accepted all heretics through repentance, and that he should not have taken upon himself the pronouncement of a sentence by custom: because the Council of Nicaea, which we mentioned a little higher, accepted all heretics, with the exception of the disciples of Paul Samosatskogo. And what is even more important, this council retains the degree of presbytery for the Novatian bishop if he converts. This definition refutes both Lucifer and Hilary: because it applies at the same time to both the cleric and the baptized. I could talk like this all day long, drying up all the streams of objections with just the sunlight of the church. But since we have already talked a lot, and the length of the dispute has tired the attention of the listeners, I will express to you my sincere thought briefly and frankly: we should firmly adhere to the church that, having been founded by the apostles, continues to exist to this day. You will hear somewhere about those who, considering themselves to be Christ’s, took the name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from someone else, such as the Marcionites, Valentinians, Montenses 16 or Campites, know that this is not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of the Antichrist. For the very fact that they appeared later indicates in them those whom the apostle foretold in the future. And let them not flatter themselves that they apparently find confirmation of their words in the Scriptures: because the devil also spoke something from the Scriptures; and the essence of the Scriptures is not in reading, but in understanding. Otherwise, if we followed only the letter, we could create a new dogma for ourselves, at least asserting that those who wear shoes and have two shirts should not be accepted into the church. L. Do not consider yourself the only winner: we both won; and each of us celebrates his victory, you over me, I over delusion. Oh, if I always had to argue so that, while achieving the best, I would leave behind the bad things that I was holding on to! However, having learned perfectly well the morals of my own people, I will tell you one thing - that it is easier to defeat them than to convince them. Nec ob Sardorum tantum mastrucam, literally – not for mastrucam only in Sardis. Mastruka was a garment made of animal skin, worn by the Sardis, which had a foul smell. When catching deer, feathers were hung on strings in front of the space where the nets were laid out, so that the animals, frightened by their flapping, would throw themselves into the nets. Allusion to 8th century. Chapter 11 of Isaiah: “And as a young man he laid his hand on the caves of the asps, and laid his hand on the bed of the offspring of the asps.” In one of the editions of the works of Bl. Jerome's place reads: coming, i.e. joining Arian. Jerome, like other Western theologians of his time, due to their way of thinking, could not sufficiently understand for themselves the meaning of the words ἀυσ ί α and ὑπ ό στασις, which have received special weight since the Council of Nicaea in the dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox East. That’s why he talks about this subject with some irritability. That is, in the choirs and under the church choirs. A battering ram is a battering ram weapon used by the ancients. St. Athanasius, Hilary and Eusebius of Vercella. Information about such a resolution of African bishops is found only in Jerome. Blessed. Jerome speaks as if through the mouth of the church. Montes, Montenses, from mons, were the followers of Donatus, because they had a church on a mountain in Rome. For the Campens, see the first letter to Pope Damasus. Lucifer, Bishop of Calaritan, was of the opinion that those who signed the confession of faith craftily compiled by the Arians at the Ariminian Council could no longer enter into communion with the church, even if they repented; and refused to communicate even with those who accepted them (Sulpicius, historical book II, chapter 45). From here came the origin of the sect of Luciferians, who claimed that the Arians, as well as the bishops who were once in agreement with them, could no longer communicate the Holy Spirit, and had lost the grace of episcopacy and priesthood to such an extent that they could not perform the sacraments at all; why even those baptized by them were accepted only by the laying on of hands and after the invocation of the Holy Spirit. You might be interested in: